This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-14-364T
entitled 'Extreme Weather Events: Limiting Federal Fiscal Exposure and
Increasing the Nation's Resilience' which was released on February 12,
2014.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST:
Wednesday, February 12, 2014:
Extreme Weather Events:
Limiting Federal Fiscal Exposure and Increasing the Nation's
Resilience:
Statement of Mark Gaffigan, Managing Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-14-364T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-14-364T, a testimony before the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
According to the United States Global Change Research Program, the
costs and impacts of weather disasters resulting from floods, drought,
and other events are expected to increase in significance as
previously “rare” events become more common and intense. These impacts
pose financial risks to the federal government. While it is not
possible to link any individual weather event to climate change, these
events provide insight into the potential climate-related
vulnerabilities the United States faces.
GAO focuses particular attention on government operations it
identifies as posing a “high risk” to the American taxpayer and, in
February 2013, added to its High Risk List the area Limiting the
Federal Government's Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change
Risks. GAO's past work identified a variety of fiscal exposures—
responsibilities, programs, and activities that may either legally
commit the federal government to future spending or create the
expectation for future spending in response to extreme weather events.
This testimony is based on reports GAO issued from March 2007 to
November 2013 that address these issues.
What GAO Found:
The federal government has opportunities to limit its exposure and
increase the nation's resilience to extreme weather events. Since
1980, the U.S. has experienced 151 weather disasters with damages
exceeding 1 billion dollars each. This testimony focuses on 4 areas
where the government could limit its fiscal exposure.
* Property and crop insurance:
The financial risks from two federal insurance programs-—the National
Flood Insurance Program administered by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
(FCIC)—-create a significant fiscal exposure. In 2012, the NFIP had
property coverage of over $1.2 trillion and the FCIC had crop coverage
of almost $120 billion. As of December 2013, FEMA's debt from flood
insurance payments totaled about $24 billion. For various reasons, FCIC'
s costs more than doubled from $3.4 billion in fiscal year 2001 to
$7.6 billion in fiscal year 2012. In 2007, GAO found that the agencies
responsible for these programs needed to develop information on their
long-term exposure to climate change. The Biggert-Waters Flood
Insurance Reform Act of 2012 requires FEMA to use information on
future changes in sea levels and other factors in updating flood maps
used to set insurance rates. Private insurers are also studying how to
include climate change in rate setting. GAO is currently examining the
extent to which private and federal insurance programs address risks
from climate change.
* Disaster aid:
The federal government does not fully budget for recovery activities
after major disasters, thus creating a large fiscal exposure. GAO
reported in 2012 that disaster declarations have increased to a record
98 in fiscal year 2011 compared with 65 in 2004. Over that period,
FEMA obligated over $80 billion for disaster aid. GAO's past work
recommended that FEMA address the federal fiscal exposure from
disaster assistance.
* Owner and operator of infrastructure:
The federal government owns and operates hundreds of thousands of
facilities that a changing climate could affect. For example, in its
2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Department of Defense (DOD)
recognized the risk to its facilities posed by climate change, noting
that the department must assess the potential impacts and adapt. GAO
plans to report later this year on DOD's management of climate change
risks at over 500,000 defense facilities.
* Provider of technical assistance to state and local governments:
The federal government invests billions of dollars annually in
infrastructure projects that state and local governments prioritize,
such as roads and bridges. Total public spending on transportation and
water infrastructure exceeds $300 billion annually, with about 25
percent coming from the federal government and the rest from state and
local governments. GAO's April 2013 report on infrastructure
adaptation concluded that the federal government could help state and
local efforts to increase their resilience by (1) improving access to
and use of available climate-related information, (2) providing
officials with improved access to local assistance, and (3) helping
officials consider climate change in their planning processes.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is not making new recommendations but made numerous
recommendations in prior reports on these topics, which are in varying
states of implementation by the Executive Office of the President and
relevant federal agencies.
View GAO-14-364T. For more information, contact Mark Gaffigan at (202)
512-3841 or gaffiganm@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Coburn, and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for inviting me to discuss our work on opportunities for the
federal government to reduce the fiscal exposure and financial risks
posed by extreme weather events.[Footnote 1] According to the United
States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), the impacts and
costliness of weather disasters--resulting from floods, drought, and
other events such as tropical cyclones--are expected to increase in
significance as previously "rare" events become more common and
intense due to anticipated changes in the global climate system.
[Footnote 2] Typically, climate change is described as average annual
changes in temperature or precipitation, and is associated with shifts
in the frequency and severity of extreme weather that can impose
substantial costs on society. The 151 weather disasters since 1980
with overall damages exceeding $1 billion each illustrate these
vulnerabilities.[Footnote 3] While it is not possible to link any
individual weather event to climate change, these events provide
insight into the potential climate-related vulnerabilities the United
States faces.
Federal, state, and local policymakers increasingly view adaptation--
adjustments to natural or human systems in response to actual or
expected climate change--as a risk-management strategy to protect
vulnerable sectors and communities that could be affected by extreme
weather events and changes in the climate. For example, adaptation
measures may include raising river or coastal dikes to protect
infrastructure from sea level rise, building higher bridges, and
increasing the capacity of storm water systems. As stated in a 2010
National Research Council (NRC) report, even though uncertainties
exist regarding the exact nature and magnitude of impacts, mobilizing
now to increase the nation's resilience can be an insurance policy
against climate change risks.[Footnote 4]
My testimony today is based on reports we issued from March 2007 to
November 2013. We conducted work for these reports in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Our issued reports
have detailed information about our scope and methodology.
Limiting Federal Fiscal Exposure and Financial Risks from Extreme
Weather Events by Increasing the Nation's Resilience:
Among other impacts, climate change could threaten coastal areas with
rising sea levels, alter agricultural productivity, and increase the
intensity and frequency of severe weather events such as floods,
drought, and hurricanes that have cost the nation tens of billions of
dollars in damages over the past decade. For example, Congress
provided around $60 billion in budget authority for disaster
assistance after Superstorm Sandy.[Footnote 5] These impacts pose
significant financial risks, but the federal government is not well
positioned to address this fiscal exposure, partly because of the
complex nature of the issue. Given these challenges and the nation's
fiscal condition, in February 2013, we added Limiting the Federal
Government's Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks
to our list of high-risk areas.[Footnote 6]
Climate-related impacts will result in increased fiscal exposures for
the federal government from many areas, including, but not limited to
its role as (1) the insurer of property and crops vulnerable to
climate impacts, (2) the provider of aid in response to disasters, (3)
the owner or operator of extensive infrastructure such as defense
facilities and federal property vulnerable to climate impacts, and (4)
the provider of data and technical assistance to state and local
governments responsible for managing the impacts of climate change on
their activities.
Federal Government as Insurer of Property and Crops:
The financial risks from two important federal insurance programs--the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) administered by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Federal Crop Insurance
Corporation (FCIC) administered by the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA)--create a significant fiscal exposure. In 2012, the
NFIP had property coverage of over $1.2 trillion and the FCIC had crop
coverage of almost $120 billion. NFIP has been on our High Risk List
since March 2006 because of concerns about its long-term financial
solvency and related operational issues. While Congress and FEMA
intended to finance NFIP with premiums collected from policyholders
and not with tax dollars, the program was, by design, not intended to
pay for itself. As of December 2013, FEMA's debt from flood insurance
payments totaled about $24 billion--up from $17.8 billion before
Superstorm Sandy--and FEMA had not repaid any principal on the loan
since 2010.[Footnote 7] Further, the federal government's crop
insurance costs have increased in recent years for a variety of
reasons, more than doubling from $3.4 billion in fiscal year 2001 to
$7.6 billion in fiscal year 2012.[Footnote 8]
In March 2007, we reported that both of these programs' exposure to
weather-related losses had grown substantially, and that FEMA and USDA
had done little to develop the information necessary to understand
their long-term exposure resulting from climate change.[Footnote 9] We
recommended that the Secretaries of Agriculture and Homeland Security
analyze the potential long-term fiscal implications of climate change
on federal insurance programs and report their findings to Congress.
The agencies agreed with the recommendation and contracted with
experts to study their programs' long-term exposure from climate
change. Both agencies have incorporated the findings of the reports
into their climate change adaptation plans--as directed by
instructions and guidance implementing Executive Order 13514 on
Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance.
We are currently examining how these programs account for climate
change in their activities.
In addition, we have previously reported on external factors that
complicate the administration of NFIP and affect its financial
stability.[Footnote 10] In June 2011, we reported that FEMA had not
been authorized to account for long-term erosion when updating flood
maps used to set premium rates for NFIP, increasing the likelihood
that premiums would not cover future losses. We therefore suggested
that Congress consider authorizing NFIP to account for long-term
erosion in its flood maps.[Footnote 11] Subsequently, Congress passed
the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Biggert-Waters
Act), which requires FEMA to use information on topography, coastal
erosion areas, changing lake levels, future changes in sea levels, and
intensity of hurricanes in updating its flood maps.[Footnote 12]
The Biggert-Waters Act also reauthorized NFIP through 2017 and made
other significant changes to the program, including removing
subsidized premium rates for certain properties, eliminating the
grandfathering of prior premium rates when a property is remapped, and
requiring FEMA to create a reserve fund. While these changes may help
put NFIP on a path to financial solvency, their ultimate effect is not
yet known. In addition, the program faces challenges in making the
changes. For example, implementation of certain changes was delayed by
provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, and S.
1926, which passed the Senate on January 30, 2014, would delay the
implementation of certain rate increases contained in the Biggert-
Waters Act. As we have previously reported, such delays to rate
increases may help address affordability concerns, but they would
likely continue to increase NFIP's long-term burden on taxpayers.
[Footnote 13]
Federal Government as Provider of Disaster Aid:
In the event of a major disaster, federal funding for response and
recovery comes from the Disaster Relief Fund managed by FEMA, and
disaster aid programs of other participating federal
agencies.[Footnote 14] The federal government does not fully budget
for these costs, thus creating a large fiscal exposure. We reported,
in September 2012, that disaster declarations have increased over
recent decades to a record of 98 in fiscal year 2011 compared with 65
in 2004.[Footnote 15] Over that period, FEMA obligated over $80
billion in federal assistance for disasters. We also found that FEMA
has had difficulty implementing long-standing plans to assess national
preparedness capabilities and that FEMA's indicator for determining
whether to recommend that a jurisdiction receive disaster assistance
does not accurately reflect the ability of state and local governments
to respond to disasters.[Footnote 16] Had FEMA adjusted its indicator
to reflect changes in personal income and inflation, 44 percent and 25
percent fewer disaster declarations, respectively, would have met the
threshold for public assistance during fiscal years 2004 through 2011.
In September 2012, we recommended, among other things, that FEMA
develop a methodology to more accurately assess a jurisdiction's
capability to respond to and recover from a disaster without federal
assistance. FEMA concurred with this recommendation.
Federal Government as Property Owner and Operator:
The federal government owns and operates hundreds of thousands of
buildings and facilities that a changing climate could affect. For
example, in its 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Department of
Defense (DOD) recognized the risk to its facilities posed by climate
change, noting that the department must assess potential impacts and
adapt as required.[Footnote 17] We plan to report later this year on
DOD's management of climate change risks at over 500,000 defense
facilities. In addition, the federal government manages about 650
million acres--nearly 30 percent of the land in the United States--for
a variety of purposes, such as recreation, grazing, timber, and fish
and wildlife. In 2007, we recommended that the Secretaries of
Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior develop guidance for their
resource managers that explains how they expect to address the effects
of climate change, and the three departments generally agreed with
this recommendation.[Footnote 18] However, as we showed in our May
2013 report, resource managers still struggled to incorporate climate-
related information into their day-to-day activities, despite the
creation of strategic policy documents and high-level agency guidance.
[Footnote 19]
Federal Government as Provider of Technical Assistance to State and
Local Governments:
The federal government invests billions of dollars annually in
infrastructure projects that state and local governments prioritize
and supervise. In total, the United States has about 4 million miles
of roads and 30,000 wastewater treatment and collection facilities.
According to a 2010 Congressional Budget Office report, total public
spending on transportation and water infrastructure exceeds $300
billion annually, with roughly 25 percent of this amount coming from
the federal government and the rest coming from state and local
governments.[Footnote 20] These projects have large up-front capital
investments and long lead times that require decisions about
addressing climate change before its potential effects are
discernible. The federal government plays a limited role in project-
level planning for transportation and wastewater infrastructure, and
state and local efforts to consider climate change in infrastructure
planning have occurred primarily on a limited, ad hoc basis.
Infrastructure is typically designed to withstand and operate within
historical climate patterns. However, according to NRC, as the climate
changes and historical patterns--in particular, those related to
extreme weather events--no longer provide reliable predictions of the
future, infrastructure designs may underestimate the climate-related
impacts to infrastructure over its design life, which can range as
long as 50 to 100 years.[Footnote 21] These impacts can increase the
operating and maintenance costs of infrastructure or decrease its life
span, or both, leading to social, economic, and environmental impacts.
For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
estimates that, within 15 years, segments of Louisiana State Highway
1--the only road access to Port Fourchon, which services virtually all
deep-sea oil operations in the Gulf of Mexico, or about 18 percent of
the nation's oil supply--will be inundated by tides an average of 30
times annually due to relative sea level rise. Flooding of this road
effectively closes this port. Because of Port Fourchon's significance
to the oil industry at the national, state, and local levels, the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, in July 2011, estimated that a
closure of 90 days could reduce the national gross domestic product by
$7.8 billion.[Footnote 22] Figure 1 shows Louisiana State Highway 1
leading to Port Fourchon.
Figure 1: Louisiana State Highway 1 Leading to Port Fourchon:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: NOAA.
[End of figure]
Despite the risks posed by climate change, we found, in April 2013,
that infrastructure decision makers have not systematically
incorporated potential climate change impacts in planning for roads,
bridges, and wastewater management systems because, among other
factors, they face challenges identifying and obtaining available
climate change information best suited for their projects.[Footnote
23] Even where good scientific information is available, it may not be
in the actionable, practical form needed for decision makers to use in
planning and designing infrastructure. Such decision makers work with
traditional engineering processes, which often require very specific
and discrete information. Moreover, local decision makers--who, in
this case, specialize in infrastructure planning, not climate science--
need assistance from experts who can help them translate available
climate change information into something that is locally relevant. In
our site visits to a limited number of locations where decision makers
overcame these challenges--including Louisiana State Highway 1--state
and local officials emphasized the role that the federal government
could play in helping to increase their resilience.[Footnote 24]
Any effective adaptation strategy must recognize that state and local
governments are on the front lines in both responding to immediate
weather-related disasters and in preparing for the potential longer-
term impacts associated with climate change. We reported, in October
2009, that insufficient site-specific data--such as local temperature
and precipitation projections--complicate state and local decisions to
justify the current costs of adaptation efforts for potentially less
certain future benefits.[Footnote 25] We recommended that the
appropriate entities within the Executive Office of the President
develop a strategic plan for adaptation that, among other things,
identifies mechanisms to increase the capacity of federal, state, and
local agencies to incorporate information about current and potential
climate change impacts into government decision making. USGCRP's April
2012 strategic plan for climate change science recognizes this need by
identifying enhanced information management and sharing as a key
objective.
Our April 2013 report on infrastructure adaptation concluded that the
federal government could help state and local efforts to increase
their resilience by (1) improving access to and use of available
climate-related information, (2) providing officials with improved
access to local assistance, and (3) helping officials consider climate
change in their planning processes.[Footnote 26] In April 2013 we
recommended, among other things, that the Executive Director of USGCRP
or other federal entity designated by the Executive Office of the
President work with relevant agencies to identify for decision makers
the "best available" climate-related information for infrastructure
planning and update this information over time, and to clarify sources
of local assistance for incorporating climate-related information and
analysis into infrastructure planning, and communicate how such
assistance will be provided over time. They have not directly
responded to these recommendations, but the President's June 2013
Climate Action Plan and November 2013 Executive Order 13653 on
Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change drew
attention to these issues.[Footnote 27] For example, the Executive
Order directs numerous federal agencies, supported by USGCRP, to work
together to develop and provide authoritative, easily accessible,
usable, and timely data, information, and decision-support tools on
climate preparedness and resilience.
We also have work under way exploring, among other things, the risk
extreme weather events and climate change pose to defense facilities,
public health, agriculture, public transit systems, and federal
insurance programs. This work--within the framework of the February
2013 high-risk designation--may identify other steps the federal
government could take to limit its fiscal exposure and make our
communities more resilient to extreme weather events.
Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Coburn, and Members of the Committee,
this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you have at this time.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
If you or your staff members have any questions about this testimony,
please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or gaffiganm@gao.gov. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this statement. Alfredo Gomez,
Director; Michael Hix, Assistant Director; and Heather Chartier,
Diantha Garms, Cindy Gilbert, Richard Johnson, Joseph Dean "Pep"
Thompson, and Lisa Van Arsdale made key contributions to this
testimony.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Our past work identified a variety of fiscal exposures--
responsibilities, programs, and activities that may either legally
commit the federal government to future spending or create the
expectation for future spending. Fiscal exposures vary widely as to
source, extent of the government's legal commitment, and magnitude.
Further, some of these factors may change over time. For example, the
government's response to an event or series of events can strengthen
expectations that the government will respond in the same way to
similar events in the future. For additional information, see Fiscal
Exposures: Improving Cost Recognition in the Federal Budget,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-28] (Washington, D.C.:
Oct. 29, 2013).
[2] Thomas R. Karl, Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, eds.
Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (Cambridge
University Press: 2009). USGCRP coordinates and integrates the
activities of 13 federal agencies that conduct research on changes in
the global environment and their implications for society. USGCRP
began as a presidential initiative in 1989 and was codified in the
Global Change Research Act of 1990 [Pub. L. No. 101-606, § 103
(1990)]. USGCRP-participating agencies are the Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Interior, Health and Human
Services, State, and Transportation; U.S. Agency for International
Development; Environmental Protection Agency; National Aeronautics and
Space Administration; the National Science Foundation; and the
Smithsonian Institution.
[3] The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National
Climatic Data Center tracks and evaluates climate events in the United
States and globally that have great economic and societal impacts.
Additional information on billion dollar weather disasters is
available here.
[4] NRC, America's Climate Choices: Panel on Adapting to the Impacts
of Climate Change, Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change
(Washington, D.C.: 2010). NRC is the principal operating agency of the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering.
[5] Congress temporarily increased the borrowing authority for the
National Flood Insurance Program by $9.7 billion and provided about
$50 billion in appropriated funds for expenses related to the
consequences of Superstorm Sandy.
[6] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-283], February 2013. Every 2 years
at the start of a new Congress, GAO calls attention to agencies and
program areas that are high risk due to their vulnerabilities to
fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, or are most in need of
transformation. Click here to access the Limiting the Federal
Government's Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks
content. The focus of this high-risk area may evolve over time to the
extent that federal climate change programs and policies change.
[7] FEMA has authority to borrow money from Treasury to pay losses
that exceed premium revenue and any accumulated surplus. Treasury
charges FEMA interest on the outstanding debt. Before Superstorm
Sandy, this borrowing authority stood at $20.725 billion. In January
2013, Congress passed and the President signed into law a $9.7 billion
increase in this authority to pay flood claims related to Superstorm
Sandy, raising FEMA's borrowing authority to a total of $30.425
billion. Pub. L. No. 113-1, § 1(a), 127 Stat. 3, 3 (2013).
[8] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-28].
[9] GAO, Climate Change: Financial Risks to Federal and Private
Insurers in Coming Decades Are Potentially Significant, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-285] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16,
2007).
[10] GAO, National Flood Insurance Program: Continued Attention Needed
to Address Challenges, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-858T] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 18,
2013); GAO, Flood Insurance: Implications of Changing Coverage Limits
and Expanding Coverage, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-568] (Washington, D.C.: July 3,
2013).
[11] GAO, FEMA: Action Needed to Improve Administration of the
National Flood Insurance Program, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-297] (Washington, D.C.: June 9,
2011).
[12] Pub. L. No 112-141, Div. F, Tit. II, Subtit. A, § 100216(b), 126
Stat. 405, 927 (2012) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 4101b(b)).
[13] GAO, Flood Insurance: Strategies for Increasing Private Sector
Involvement, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-127]
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 22, 2014).
[14] As reported by the Congressional Research Service in August 2013,
Congress appropriates money to the Disaster Relief Fund to ensure that
funding for disaster relief is available to help individuals and
communities stricken by emergencies and major disasters. Congress also
appropriates disaster funds to other accounts administered by other
federal agencies pursuant to federal statutes that authorize specific
types of disaster relief. The Disaster Relief Fund is generally funded
at a level that is sufficient for what are known as "normal"
disasters. These are incidents for which Disaster Relief Fund outlays
are less than $500 million. When a large disaster occurs, additional
funding for the Disaster Relief Fund may be provided through emergency
supplemental appropriations. A supplemental appropriation generally
provides additional budget authority during the current fiscal year to
(1) finance activities not provided for in the regular appropriation
or (2) provide funds when the regular appropriation is deemed
insufficient. For more information, see Congressional Research
Service, Disaster Relief Funding and Supplemental Appropriations for
Disaster Relief, R40708, (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 5, 2013).
[15] GAO, Federal Disaster Assistance: Improved Criteria Needed to
Assess a Jurisdiction's Capability to Respond and Recover on Its Own,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-838] (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 12, 2012).
[16] GAO, Managing Preparedness Grants and Assessing National
Capabilities, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-526T]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 20, 2012). See also GAO, Disaster Response:
Criteria for Developing and Validating Effective Response Plans,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-969T] (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 22, 2010).
[17] The Quadrennial Defense Review is a legislatively mandated review
of DOD strategies and priorities and is required to be conducted every
4 years.
[18] GAO, Climate Change: Agencies Should Develop Guidance for
Addressing the Effects on Federal Land and Water Resources,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-863] (Washington, D.C.:
Aug. 7, 2007).
[19] GAO, Climate Change: Various Adaptation Efforts Are Under Way at
Key Natural Resource Management Agencies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-253] (Washington, D.C.: May 31,
2013).
[20] Congressional Budget Office, Public Spending on Transportation
and Water Infrastructure, Pub. No. 4088 (Washington, D.C.: November
2010).
[21] See, for example, NRC, Panel on Strategies and Methods for
Climate-Related Decision Support, Committee on the Human Dimensions of
Global Change, Informing Decisions in a Changing Climate (Washington,
D.C.: 2009).
[22] Department of Homeland Security, National Infrastructure
Simulation and Analysis Center, Risk Development and Modeling Branch,
Homeland Infrastructure Threat and Risk Analysis Center, Office of
Infrastructure Protection, In Collaboration with the National Incident
Management Systems and Advanced Technologies Institute at the
University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Louisiana Highway 1/Port
Fourchon Study (July 15, 2011).
[23] GAO, Climate Change: Future Federal Adaptation Efforts Could
Better Support Local Infrastructure Decision Makers, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-242] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12,
2013).
[24] To examine consideration of climate change in U.S. infrastructure
planning, we visited a nonprobability sample of seven selected
locations where decision makers had undertaken such planning--three
locations focused on roads and bridges (Washington State Route 522;
Interstate-10 Twin Span Bridge near New Orleans, Louisiana; and
Louisiana State Highway 1) , two locations focused on wastewater
management systems (King County Wastewater Treatment Division in
Washington and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District in
Wisconsin), and two National Aeronautics and Space Administration
centers (Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, and Langley Research
Center in Hampton, Virginia).
[25] GAO, Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could
Help Government Officials Make More Informed Decisions, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-113] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 7,
2009).
[26] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-242].
[27] More information on the June 2013 Climate Action Plan and
Executive Order 13653 can be found here.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the
performance and accountability of the federal government for the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations,
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy,
and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and
reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports,
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select
“E-mail Updates.”
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
Connect with GAO:
Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm];
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov;
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470.
Congressional Relations:
Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, DC 20548.
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, DC 20548.
[End of document]